The Government isn't so much as protecting Me with those taxes as ensuring my compliance to a suicidal imperialistic system.

If you're earning more than say, $4000 a year or so, you're required to pay taxes. If you are earning that much and haven't paid...you're most likely committing some pretty serious crimes.

So if you're ever caught, I wouldn't fall back on the 'imperialist America' argument or any of the inane babble offered by the sovereign citizens regarding taxes. As they really don't know what they're talking about. And the prison terms for those following their counsel are generally quite long.

The Government isn't so much as protecting Me with those taxes as ensuring my compliance to a suicidal imperialistic system.

If you're earning more than say, $4000 a year or so, you're required to pay taxes. If you are earning that much and haven't paid...you're most likely committing some pretty serious crimes.

So if you're ever caught, I wouldn't fall back on the 'imperialist America' argument or any of the inane babble offered by the sovereign citizens regarding taxes. As they really don't know what they're talking about. And the prison terms for those following their counsel are generally quite long.

Quoting: J 34504191

And if you earning more than $100,000 a year, hope you didn't steal it because transfer of wealth won't work in the courts. Please don't use legal mumble jumble gibberish.

My opinion? Two things: The drug war and a shift from rehabilitation to simple incarceration.

We have *way* too many harmless pot heads or addicts in our prison system. The war on drugs just hasns't worked. Its cost us more in blood and treasure than it has saved us. I'd probably recommend a wholesale shift from incarceration to treatment. As even a dozen times through rehab is the fraction of the cost of the prison terms we're handing out.

And we've seen a steady climb in the recidivism rates....where we don't give ex-convicts many options but crime once they leave prison. No particular skills, laws that make it really hard to get hired, and a culture that doesn't really offer much in terms of second chances.

If I had the money and unlimited time, felons would be my primary focus. Children, dogs and dolphins have plenty of advocates. But who takes the time to try to help felons become productive members of society and live a full and fulfilling life?

My opinion? Two things: The drug war and a shift from rehabilitation to simple incarceration.

We have *way* too many harmless pot heads or addicts in our prison system. The war on drugs just hasns't worked. Its cost us more in blood and treasure than it has saved us. I'd probably recommend a wholesale shift from incarceration to treatment. As even a dozen times through rehab is the fraction of the cost of the prison terms we're handing out.

And we've seen a steady climb in the recidivism rates....where we don't give ex-convicts many options but crime once they leave prison. No particular skills, laws that make it really hard to get hired, and a culture that doesn't really offer much in terms of second chances.

If I had the money and unlimited time, felons would be my primary focus. Children, dogs and dolphins have plenty of advocates. But who takes the time to try to help felons become productive members of society and live a full and fulfilling life?

Too few if you ask me.

Quoting: J 34504191

Well then those people who are in prison who didn't have any victims can go after the people who profit and stole their life. Right?

My opinion? Two things: The drug war and a shift from rehabilitation to simple incarceration.

We have *way* too many harmless pot heads or addicts in our prison system. The war on drugs just hasns't worked. Its cost us more in blood and treasure than it has saved us. I'd probably recommend a wholesale shift from incarceration to treatment. As even a dozen times through rehab is the fraction of the cost of the prison terms we're handing out.

And we've seen a steady climb in the recidivism rates....where we don't give ex-convicts many options but crime once they leave prison. No particular skills, laws that make it really hard to get hired, and a culture that doesn't really offer much in terms of second chances.

If I had the money and unlimited time, felons would be my primary focus. Children, dogs and dolphins have plenty of advocates. But who takes the time to try to help felons become productive members of society and live a full and fulfilling life?

Too few if you ask me.

Quoting: J 34504191

My opinion - the answer digs far deeper then what I believe is a false drug war, and here we go down the conspiracy trail...

So the courts switched to incarceration - funny how that times very well with the privatization of the prison system...

Stealing is a crime and when you steal, kidnap, false arrest. rico and many charges will be brought to those who are involved. Like your silly war on drugs.

And who said stealing wasn't a crime? Again, you're once again refuting arguments that no one is making. Much like your 'transfer of wealth' babble...which you awkwardly tried to attribute to me.

Now in relation to the war on drugs....I think its bad policy that uses inconsistent logic. But its certainly within the authority of the people to make drugs illegal.

As the people have authority that you, individually, do not. You lack the authority to lock someone away in your basement if you don't like what they're doing. The people most definitely have the authority to create prisons where they can lock up criminals convicted of crimes.

Stealing is a crime and when you steal, kidnap, false arrest. rico and many charges will be brought to those who are involved. Like your silly war on drugs.

And who said stealing wasn't a crime? Again, you're once again refuting arguments that no one is making. Much like your 'transfer of wealth' babble...which you awkwardly tried to attribute to me.

Now in relation to the war on drugs....I think its bad policy that uses inconsistent logic. But its certainly within the authority of the people to make drugs illegal.

As the people have authority that you, individually, do not. You lack the authority to lock someone away in your basement if you don't like what they're doing. The people most definitely have the authority to create prisons where they can lock up criminals convicted of crimes.

Surely you're not equating kidnapping and incarceration?

Quoting: J 34504191

More and more you are sounding guilty of stealing. Like I said that transfer of wealth won't cut in in the court room.

My opinion - the answer digs far deeper then what I believe is a false drug war, and here we go down the conspiracy trail...

The conspiracy trail gets really muddy, really quick. As its overwhelmingly based in fact free speculation. Which is rarely a reliable indicator of reality.

Worse, most conspiracies are needlessly elaborate, fantasticaly complicated and completely unnecessary. It also tends to grow more ornate with time as layer upon layer of speculation are added atop it.

Fact based assessments occasionally have to say 'I don't know'. As there's no enough evidence. But you get pretty good results when you base your analysis in what you can factually establish....instead of what you imagine.

And again, that's the shytting 'collective' you in English. Not you personally.

My opinion - the answer digs far deeper then what I believe is a false drug war, and here we go down the conspiracy trail...

The conspiracy trail gets really muddy, really quick. As its overwhelmingly based in fact free speculation. Which is rarely a reliable indicator of reality.

Worse, most conspiracies are needlessly elaborate, fantasticaly complicated and completely unnecessary. It also tends to grow more ornate with time as layer upon layer of speculation are added atop it.

Fact based assessments occasionally have to say 'I don't know'. As there's no enough evidence. But you get pretty good results when you base your analysis in what you can factually establish....instead of what you imagine.

And again, that's the shytting 'collective' you in English. Not you personally.

"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based of five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, or county commissioners." - Edward Abbey

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner

"If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skin into their clothing, and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order." - Firefly

My opinion - the answer digs far deeper then what I believe is a false drug war, and here we go down the conspiracy trail...

The conspiracy trail gets really muddy, really quick. As its overwhelmingly based in fact free speculation. Which is rarely a reliable indicator of reality.

Worse, most conspiracies are needlessly elaborate, fantasticaly complicated and completely unnecessary. It also tends to grow more ornate with time as layer upon layer of speculation are added atop it.

Fact based assessments occasionally have to say 'I don't know'. As there's no enough evidence. But you get pretty good results when you base your analysis in what you can factually establish....instead of what you imagine.

And again, that's the shytting 'collective' you in English. Not you personally.

Quoting: J 34504191

The operative word here is "you"...

By examining documents, making obsevations, you can draw conclusions that can make you relatively confident... But, "you" will never be 100%, until you do it...

And, of course you are right, some who have done it, have gone to jail... This should not be a fear signal, it is a signal to step up your education...

And again we come down to the "you" factor, as only "you", can prove it to "yourself"...

For example - from your gist, you do not buy the all CAP, trust factor, I do... Do I let your opinion sway me?? No...I am relatively confident, and I want to make it 100%, by me doing it...

Another example - I have the ace, that settles the publics 12 card deck... I hold the higher card, if I choose to play it that way... You say I do not, the public, peoples authority is the top... Do I allow you to coerce me with your opinion ??? No... I am confident, that I am right, and I will proceed...

Btw, in a deck of cards, the ace can be one, or eleven...Should you decide it to be one, you go under the public...If you play it as eleven, the public is under you...

You cannot refuse to play, it is how you play...So no, I do not complain about taxes, fines, etc. I play by the rules in the system, and exercise remedy to the best of my knowledge at this time...

I can hear it again - silly sovereign "ilk" theory...

No matter, I am right, because the higher nature of my existence and path choice pulls me in this direction... Not for financial /material gains... It is a spiritual quest to rid myself of herd, group mentality...

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio [link to images.intellitxt.com] ( [link to www.answerbag.com] App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

The above is exactly how the system is set up, to prey on the weak and those bought and seduced by compliance with every whim of their masters.

There are no "rights" unless and until you are willing to TAKE THEM, they are not "given" they are FORCED from the grip of government by a BELLIGERENT COMBATIVE and WILLING man or woman.

To believe a US Citizen is "free" and has "rights" because of what others fought died for is A LIE, only YOU can stand up and take what is your birthright from those who would happily enslave you.

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio [link to images.intellitxt.com] ( [link to www.answerbag.com] App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

The above is exactly how the system is set up, to prey on the weak and those bought and seduced by compliance with every whim of their masters.

There are no "rights" unless and until you are willing to TAKE THEM, they are not "given" they are FORCED from the grip of government by a BELLIGERENT COMBATIVE and WILLING man or woman.

To believe a US Citizen is "free" and has "rights" because of what others fought died for is A LIE, only YOU can stand up and take what is your birthright from those who would happily enslave you.

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio [link to images.intellitxt.com] ( [link to www.answerbag.com] App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

The above is exactly how the system is set up, to prey on the weak and those bought and seduced by compliance with every whim of their masters.

There are no "rights" unless and until you are willing to TAKE THEM, they are not "given" they are FORCED from the grip of government by a BELLIGERENT COMBATIVE and WILLING man or woman.

To believe a US Citizen is "free" and has "rights" because of what others fought died for is A LIE, only YOU can stand up and take what is your birthright from those who would happily enslave you.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

How did that work out for Ed and Elaine Brown or others you may know?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32235185

I do not associate with tax cheats.

They endorsed Federal Reserve Credit, they then refused to pay the owner of that credit a return of currency, that is a property crime.

The courts upheld a legal and constitutional law in their prosecution, end of discussion for me.

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio [link to images.intellitxt.com] ( [link to www.answerbag.com] App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

The above is exactly how the system is set up, to prey on the weak and those bought and seduced by compliance with every whim of their masters.

There are no "rights" unless and until you are willing to TAKE THEM, they are not "given" they are FORCED from the grip of government by a BELLIGERENT COMBATIVE and WILLING man or woman.

To believe a US Citizen is "free" and has "rights" because of what others fought died for is A LIE, only YOU can stand up and take what is your birthright from those who would happily enslave you.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

How did that work out for Ed and Elaine Brown or others you may know?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32235185

I do not associate with tax cheats.

They endorsed Federal Reserve Credit, they then refused to pay the owner of that credit a return of currency, that is a property crime.

The courts upheld a legal and constitutional law in their prosecution, end of discussion for me.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

Are you saying if you endorse by using the remedy Title 12 sec 411 you don't have to pay taxes?

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio [link to images.intellitxt.com] ( [link to www.answerbag.com] App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

The above is exactly how the system is set up, to prey on the weak and those bought and seduced by compliance with every whim of their masters.

There are no "rights" unless and until you are willing to TAKE THEM, they are not "given" they are FORCED from the grip of government by a BELLIGERENT COMBATIVE and WILLING man or woman.

To believe a US Citizen is "free" and has "rights" because of what others fought died for is A LIE, only YOU can stand up and take what is your birthright from those who would happily enslave you.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

How did that work out for Ed and Elaine Brown or others you may know?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32235185

I do not associate with tax cheats.

They endorsed Federal Reserve Credit, they then refused to pay the owner of that credit a return of currency, that is a property crime.

The courts upheld a legal and constitutional law in their prosecution, end of discussion for me.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

Are you saying if you endorse by using the remedy Title 12 sec 411 you don't have to pay taxes?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32235185

I am not saying that at all. I am saying and have been saying that the question "does redeeming lawful money per 12 USC 411 redeem one from the income tax"? has NEVER been tried in court.

Bringing up individual cases where the defendant or appellant has not demanded redemption per 12 USC 411 is pointless, since the question before the court is different.

There is ample evidence the IRS believes it makes a difference, since full refunds have been issued without question to those doing it. In some cases, their were questions, but once the status of the demand record was given, the IRS has backed off immediately.

Full refunds are NOT proof, but the results are there and to date, and after years of people doing it, no threats nor cases nor bulletins about "frivolous arguments" have been made by the IRS, anyone can verify that for themselves.